Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Plastic Products Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. on 21 September, 1966

Prakash Trading Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 1968

13. The same expression was interpreted in Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 480) by the Division Bench consisting of S. C. Manchanda and M. H. Beg, JJ., when the question had arisen as to whether a plastic razor was a "cosmetic or a toilet requisite" under item 6 "cosmetics and toilet requisites" under the relevant legislation. By the doctrine of ejusdem generis "toilet requisites" were given a narrower meaning and therefore the decision as such would not help us when we have to interpret a totally different definition. We are only referring to this decision for the narrow purpose of finding out the various meanings of the expression "toilet" as the learned Advocate-General has vehemently relied upon the various meanings given in this decision at pages 482 and 483. Manchanda, J., considered the different uses of "cosmetic" in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary as, "the art of beautifying the body - a preparation (except soap) to be applied to the human body for beautifying, preserving or altering the appearance of a person or for cleansing, colouring, conditioning or protecting the skin, hair, nails, lips, eyes or teeth." In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 20, this word is given the meaning as "a general term construed as having reference to hair preparations as well as to skin lotions, as including hair oils, dyes and dressings, tooth-pastes, washes and dentifrices, and toilet soaps; defined as meaning any external application intended to beautify or improve the complexion, skin, or hair." "Toilet" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary means, "to make one's toilet; dress-groom, the process of washing, grooming and arranging one's self for the day's activities or for a special occasion." "Toiletry" means, "an article or preparation used in making one's toilet (such as a soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth-paste, shaving-cream, cologne)." In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 86, it is mentioned in respect of "toilet" that "there are several different definitions given for the word 'toilet'. It may mean an act or process of dressing; also, that which is arranged in dressing; attire; dress; get up', also a particular costume; and it may designate the several articles collectively used in making one's toilet. While formerly the term referred specially to the act or process of dressing hair, in current use it means cleansing and grooming of one's person. Thus, the act of washing and cleansing the hands is a part of making the toilet and the daily shave is generally regarded as a toilet necessity." In that context it was observed by Manchanda, J., that "toilet" in the dictionary meaning is very wide and toilet requisites cover a large variety of articles ranging from toilet-paper, toilet cloth to the requirements of the dressing table and bath-room, and even the safety razor would be a "toilet requisite". A narrow meaning was, however, given on the doctrine of ejusdem generis, especially as those words were selected for higher taxation and it was held at page 484 that toilet requisites must be confined to those articles, which are of the same genus as cosmetics. Beg, J., at page 487 also pointed out that the general dictionary meaning of "toilet" is, "the act or process of dressing; the process of washing, grooming and arranging one's self for the day's activities or for a special occasion." Beg, J., further pointed out that among other meanings of the word is bath-room or lavatory fitted with "a fixture consisting typically of a water flushed bowl with a toilet seat that is used for urinating and defecation." The term "toilet" was, therefore, used for all kinds of dressing or cleansing one's self. Further proceeding Beg, J., observed : "Even if we confine our attention to the wide meaning of the term 'toilet', which are current to-day, it would cover almost every process and means employed for dressing and for making one's self presentable and ready for one's daily activities or for a particular occasion. The wide meaning of the term 'toilet' would include a bath-room or the lavatory itself, and 'toilet requisites' could, if the wide meaning was taken, include equipment such as wash-basins, pipes, water-taps, sprays, and sanitary fittings." In the context of entry 6, however, "toilet requisites" were given restricted meaning by applying ejusdem generis rule and it was held they covered more than cosmetics and would include preparations such as shaving-cream, tooth-paste, hair-lotions, shampoos and soap, although soap was mentioned separately in the notification, but did not include parts of the safety razors or other similar objects. In other words, "toilet requisites" might be equated with "toiletry" and could include whatever fell under that heading. Tools, instruments, devices like scissors, clippers, razors, electrical hair drying machines used in the process of hairdressing or shaving or manicure, could have been easily indicated clearly or mentioned specifically as other items were mentioned in the notification, the effect of which was only that sales tax was levied at a single point instead of being levied at several points.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Vicco Laboratories on 20 February, 1968

In a more recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ([1967] 19 S.T.C. 480.), the question was whether a plastic safety-razor would be a toilet requisite. In considering the question at page 483 of the report, the Court referred to the definition of the word "toilet" and "toiletry" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary and "toiletry" there included preparation such as soap, lotion, cosmetic, tooth-paste, shaving cream, cologne etc.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs S.P. Vadivel Nadar And Sons on 18 July, 1967

The item mentions various articles each of which is intended to beautify the body or the face. There is nothing in the item which will cover medicinal preparations as the thailam in question. There has been citation before us for the revenue which in our view is not of much assistance, for, the question has to be decided in the light of the nature and property of each article. Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1967] 19 S.T.C. 480 has held that a plastic safety-razor is not a "cosmetic" or a "toilet requisite" within the meaning of item 6 of the notification issued by the U.P. Government under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Item 6 in the notification there related to "cosmetics and toilet requisites". The learned Judges referred to Webster's Third New International Dictionary for the meaning of the words "toilet" and "cosmetic" and concluded that though wide meaning was attached to each of those words, nevertheless, the words "toilet requisites" should be read ejusdem generis with the word "cosmetics" and so done, it was clear to the Court that plastic safety-razor was neither a cosmetic nor a toilet requisite. Cosmetic and toilet are used in the context of beautifying the body and subject to that primary sense, several shades in the sense of each of those words are included in them. It is obvious that a drug intended to cure diseases is not within their ambit.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Janta Ayurvedic Bhawan vs Collector Of Customs on 11 March, 1988

Learned advocate has also urged that a reference was made to the Ministry of Commerce by another concern and they have replied in their letter dated 4th May, 1984 addressed to M/s. British International Trading Co., Bombay confirming that poppy seeds is not an oil seed. Elaborating on the arguments that the note below S.No.9 of para 5 appendix-5/Pt.B should be confined only to the oil-bearing seeds, the learned advocate has urged that the well-known principle-ejusdem generis-should be applied for interpreting the said note. This principle of construction, according to the learned advocate has been applied in interpreting the general words which follow the specific words and has been accepted by the authoritative ruling of various courts including the Supreme Court. For this proposition, the learned advocate relies on (i) AIR 1960 SC 1080 para 50 (Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala), (ii) 1965(16) STC 7 (Commissioner of Sales Tax Madhya Pradesh v. Jabalpur Aerated Water Factory), (iii) 1967(19) STC 480 (Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax-U.P.)
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... vs Jai Shri Products, Varanasi on 14 February, 1974

The view taken by this Court in Plastic Products Ltd. (Supra) is too narrow a view to be accepted. We do not find anything in the context or according to the popular meaning to restrict the words 'toilet requisite' to 'cosmetics", even though some of the articles may be regarded both as articles of toilet and cosmetic. But appliances like tooth brush and hair pins, hair clips are essentially articles of toiletry and not cosmetics, as this term is understood in common parlance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Subhash Stores on 30 October, 1967

5. The expression "all toilet Articles" is preceded by the words" perfumery and cosmetics". The expression "including toilet soaps, tooth-paste including manjan, combs, brushes, perfumed hair oils etc." also indicates that the Articles covered under this entry are not all Articles which may be someway connected with the toilet of a person but which are of the same genus as perfumery, cosmetics etc. This Court has held in 1963 MP LJ 772, referred to above, that the words "cosmetics" and "toilet", being words of everyday use, must be construed as understood in common parlance. If the words are interpreted in that manner, in our opinion a razor blade cannot be interpreted to mean either as item of cosmetic or an Article of toilet. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that a razor blade is not included in Entry 31 of Schedule II Part II, and that the sale thereof can be taxed only under entry 1 of Schedule II, Part VI of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Pradeep Products on 1 January, 1970

In Plastic Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1967] 19 S.T.C. 480, a Bench of this court held that the dictionary meaning is very wide and toilet requisites cover a large variety of articles ranging from toilet-paper, toilet cloth to the requirements of the dressing table and bath-room. If that is the meaning which has to be given to toilet requisites then a safety razor would conceivably fall within it. Such meaning could only have been given if item 6, "toilet requisites", had stood alone but they are preceded by the specific word "cosmetic" and, therefore, the rule of ejusdem generis in the construction of statutes will come into play. In the context, manufacturers of all "toilet requisites" were not to be taxed at a higher rate. It was only the manufacturer of such toilet requisites as would be of the same genus as "cosmetics" that were to suffer the higher tax. It was held that it could not have been the intention to include all kinds of articles or artificial aid, which might go to beautify or render the body more beautiful as toilet requisites such as necklaces, jewellery, hairpins, scissors or bangles. On the rule of ejusdem generis, therefore, "toilet requisites" must be confined to those articles which are of the same genus as "cosmetics". It will,-therefore, appear that such articles that are used for the purpose of beautifying the human body or for preserving or altering the appearance of a person, would alone come under this term "cosmetics and toilet requisites" as used in the aforesaid notification.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yadurish Rai Jhun Jhunwala vs Commissioner, Sales Tax on 29 August, 1986

6. Learned counsel for the dealer has relied upon the case of Unnao Plastic Products v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1979 UPTC 1312, to the effect that if explanation is not furnished to the surveying officer but is furnished at the time of assessment, the same cannot be brushed aside if there is no other material on which the account books could be rejected. In the present case also I find that none of the authorities have anywhere recorded any other finding for the rejection of the accounts. The present case is, in my opinion, squarely covered by the aforesaid case of Unnao Plastic Products 1979 UPTC 1312.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1